The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges based on sufficient circumstantial evidence and confessions, emphasizing the admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

CRM (M) No. 603/2021

1. This quashment petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“the Cr.P.C”] is directed against an order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur [“the trial court”] in Sessions Case 19/2020 titled UT of J & K Vs. Munish Singh & Ors. whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [“the IPC”] and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. R K Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to take note of the prosecution case as is presented before the trial court:

2.1. On 02.07.2020, information from a reliable source was received at Police Station Udhampur that some unknown person or persons have committed the murder of one Rahul Bhagat S/o Subash Chander Bhagat at Dhandyal, Udhampur and the dead body was lying on the spot. On disclosure of commission of cognizable offence, an FIR was registered at the Police Station and the investigation commenced.

2.2. On 03.07.2020, accused Munish Singh S/o Madan Singh R/o Kuddhar, Tehsil Kastigarh, District Doda was arrested in the case. During the course of interrogation, Munish Singh made two disclosure statements one on 03.07.2020 and another on 09.07.2020. The other two accused namely Mohd. Aslam and Ravinder Singh were arrested on 08.07.2020 and 11.07.2020 respectively. On the basis of a confessional statement made by the accused Munish Singh on 11.07.2020 to the Dy. SP, who was investigating the matter, the petitioner herein also came to be named as accused having conspired the murder and was thus, arrested on 12.07.2020. The accused Mohd. Aslam and Ravinder Singh after their arrest also made disclosure statements in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 09.07.2020 and 11.07.2020 respectively. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The statements of some of the witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The investigation concluded with the finding of the Investigating Officer that the killing of the deceased Rahul Bhagat was engineered by the petitioner herein and accomplished by Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam. The accused Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam acted in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and his henchmen accused Ravinder Singh and in furtherance thereof, way laid the deceased and killed him by causing multiple stab injuries with the help of knife.

2.3. The Investigating Officer relied upon the confessional statement made by accused Munish Singh in which he narrated the entire sequence of events right from the hatching of conspiracy by the petitioner along with other accused to the commission of murder of deceased Rahul Bhagat. This confessional statement was made by Munish Singh on 11.07.2020 in the presence of Executive Magistrate. Taking lead from the aforesaid confessional statement made by Munish Singh, the statement of some of the witnesses including the sisters of the deceased, namely, Radha Devi and Priyanka Devi as also the uncles of the deceased, namely, Pawan Kumar, Ram Rattan, Ravi Kumar and father of the deceased, namely, Subash Chander also came to be recorded. On conclusion of the investigation, challan came to be presented before the trial court.

2.4. Vide the order impugned dated 15.09.2021, the trial court charged all the accused including the petitioner herein with commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. It is this order of the trial court which is called in question by the petitioner in this petition.

3. Impugned order is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the following grounds:

3.1. That the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner placing sole r